D&D 2E Room in 5e for 2e-style multiclassing?

[Sadrik]

I think it would work. Simply create an xp table for those character types. The designers can plan the xp to be whatever level they want. For instance if they think a 16/16 is comparable to a level 20 character, then they can spread the xp chart out comparable to allow the character to advance 16 times vs. the level 20 character's 20 times both would have comparable xp.

This would be pretty simply done. A triple classed character could also have its own xp chart. I would approve this method of multi-classing, as better than the ala cart style of 3e...

 

[Sadrik]

The benefits of this style of multi-classing are immense. No more charoping level dips. I approve.

 

[Li Shenron]

Here's a chart for single-class VS double-class characters:

XP      (1 class) (2 classes)
0        1             1/1
250      2             1/1
500      2             2/2
950      3             2/2
1900     3             3/3
2250     4             3/3
4500     4             4/4
4750     5             4/4
9500     6             5/5
16000    7             5/5
19000    7             6/6
25000    8             6/6
38000    9             7/7
50000    9             8/8
56000    10            8/8
76000    10            9/9
77000    11            9/9
96000    12            9/9
112000   12           10/10
120000   13           10/10
150000   14           10/10
154000   14           11/11
190000   15           11/11
192000   15           12/12
230000   16           12/12
240000   16           13/13
280000   17           13/13
300000   17           14/14
330000   18           14/14
380000   18           15/15
390000   19           15/15
460000   20           16/16

Until level 7, the level difference is only 0-1.
Between level 7 and 12, it's 1-2.
Between level 12 and 14, it's 2-3.
From level 14 onward, it's 3-4.

That's how many HD less the double-class PC would have, compared to the single-class.

Spells cast by spellcasters will be max 2 levels late.

Proficiency bonus is always max just 1 point less, thanks to bounded accuracy.

It sounds to me that until level 7, it's actually very convenient to have 2 classes, but after that the choice is somewhat more balanced.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

All issues with 2E-style multiclass rules are balance issues, while 3E-style rules have implementation issues. Once more, I cannot understand why this option has not been at least considered by next designers.

 

[Dausuul]

The problem multiclassing has always struggled with is that it's trying to address two different scenarios: The Gish and the Dip. In the Gish scenario, you've got a character who wants to be a full meld of two classes; a powerful wizard who is also a skilled warrior, a devout cleric who is also an accomplished thief, etc. In the Dip scenario, you've got a character with a single specialty who wants to pick up a trick or two from another class; a warrior who's mastered a few cantrips, or a cleric who grew up on the mean streets.

Gestalt-style multiclassing, the kind we had in AD&D, is the simplest and most obvious way to implement a Gish, but it can't do Dips at all. Likewise, 3E-style multiclassing is the simple, obvious way to implement a Dip, but the exponential power curve of D&D means that Gishes are seldom viable. And in both cases there are serious balance issues.

 

[Giltonio_Santos]

Gestalt-style multiclassing, the kind we had in AD&D, is the simplest and most obvious way to implement a Gish, but it can't do Dips at all.

I believe the current incarnation of feats could manage that with relative ease. I mean, strong enough to deliver the concept of dabbling into another class, without being sufficiently powerful to steal its thunder.

Cheers,

 

[Kobold Stew]

This sort of approach would also likely require controlling for feats/ability score improvements.

 

[Olgar Shiverstone]

Here's a chart for single-class VS double-class characters:

Good solution, but it would have to be an optional rule, since it relies on an XP system and many groups don't use XP as designed/written. How do you keep it balanced for a group that doesn't track XP, but just levels up every few sessions?

Likewise, 3E-style multiclassing is the simple, obvious way to implement a Dip, but the exponential power curve of D&D means that Gishes are seldom viable.

Good thing then that 5E looks to be closer to a 3E-style system, since so few players choose to play githyanki!

 

[Li Shenron]

Once more, I cannot understand why this option has not been at least considered by next designers.

I think the reason is simply because 3e-style is more popular. It opened up a new gaming style, that of "builds". It wasn't only that of course, there's also feats, spells and magic items, but multiclassing (including prestige classes) probably had the biggest effect. It is also dynamic, in the sense that you can do it gradually, as the story unfolds, instead of being a simple choice at the beginning.

The problem multiclassing has always struggled with is that it's trying to address two different scenarios: The Gish and the Dip. In the Gish scenario, you've got a character who wants to be a full meld of two classes; a powerful wizard who is also a skilled warrior, a devout cleric who is also an accomplished thief, etc. In the Dip scenario, you've got a character with a single specialty who wants to pick up a trick or two from another class; a warrior who's mastered a few cantrips, or a cleric who grew up on the mean streets.

Gestalt-style multiclassing, the kind we had in AD&D, is the simplest and most obvious way to implement a Gish, but it can't do Dips at all. Likewise, 3E-style multiclassing is the simple, obvious way to implement a Dip, but the exponential power curve of D&D means that Gishes are seldom viable. And in both cases there are serious balance issues.

Good observations. But perhaps that's a sign that having both multiclassing methods in the game would be better than having only one with limited capabilities.

Good solution, but it would have to be an optional rule, since it relies on an XP system and many groups don't use XP as designed/written. How do you keep it balanced for a group that doesn't track XP, but just levels up every few sessions?

You could cover the xp column and just use the level columns in the table above

 

[Sadrik]

I think the reason is simply because 3e-style is more popular. It opened up a new gaming style, that of "builds". It wasn't only that of course, there's also feats, spells and magic items, but multiclassing (including prestige classes) probably had the biggest effect. It is also dynamic, in the sense that you can do it gradually, as the story unfolds, instead of being a simple choice at the beginning.

Yes but I would rather have the dynamic function be applied through feats rather than classes. If you want to dip into another class's features that should be feats. If you want to be a fighter/mage that should be something done at character generation. Then feel free to dip into rogue with some feats, if you want to pick up some rogue later in your career. This would dramatically simplify the level up system. Is simplifying the level up system needed?

I can also buy the "dual-class" multi-classing method as an option. Actually it might be nice to have both the dual class and multi-class systems be included as optional. The feats to pick up other classes class features though, in my mind that is integral to the game and should not be considered optional.